Electoral Mischief

October 26, 2000

The New York Times is in an editorial lather about what it calls Ralph Nader’s “electoral mischief” — that is, the chance that Nader’s third-party campaign will rob Al Gore of enough votes to make George W. Bush president. The scolding editorial also charges Nader with “willful prankishness” and “ego run amok.”

It explains: “The country deserves a clear up-or-down vote between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore.” Deserves? Many of us think the country deserves better choices than these scions of the two-party duopoly — the dull son of a former president and the insufferable son of a former senator.

Would the Times have been equally upset if Pat Buchanan were taking as many votes from Bush as Nader is taking from Gore? It probably would have gloated that Bush had failed to appease the “extremists” in his party. But it doesn’t want to talk that way about the left wing of the Democratic Party, whose views it shares.

Liberals are always lamenting our low voter turnout, which may be even lower than usual this year. Do they ever stop to think that the two-party system may be responsible? Voter turnout is higher in Europe, where smaller parties thrive. There you may actually be able to vote for somebody you agree with, not just the lesser evil; and your party may have some impact.

But in this country, voting is a futile gesture. One economist has calculated that you are more likely to die on your way to the voting booth than to change the outcome with your vote!

Then too, even if your side wins and enacts a law you passionately favor, the courts may decide it’s unconstitutional — as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down popular term-limits legislation. If the courts can reverse the results of an election, what’s the use of voting?

The system is rigged by the two major parties, with the tacit approval and assistance of the major media. Smaller parties face prohibitively high legal hurdles, they are excluded from televised debates, and they get very little news coverage even if they manage to get on the ballot. Big corporations can get Janet Reno on their backs for doing a lot less to their smaller competitors than the major parties do to minor parties. This is one case where the government really does help the rich get richer.

This year there are three excellent candidates for president. All of them have interesting political philosophies that defy the two-party consensus. Any of them would have leveled Bush and Gore in a debate. But none of them has a prayer.

Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party needs no introduction; he is a genuine, as opposed to a “compassionate,” conservative. He is stressing a foreign policy that puts American interests ahead of corporate interests or “globalization.” More important, though, are his abiding positions in favor of limited government.

Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party favors a drastic reduction of government at every level, including the armed forces, which far exceed any defensive needs. He is a sincere, well-spoken, reasonable man whose powers of persuasion can bring a roomful of people to its feet. If only he could be exposed to more than a roomful of people. There’s no justice.

Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party has a truly radical agenda: he wants the United States to be governed according to the U.S. Constitution. That means abolishing nearly every existing federal agency and program, for openers. He would also abolish the personal income tax (as Browne would). Given a chance, he makes his case forcefully. But he too gets almost zero media coverage.

Three fine candidates, occupying overlapping positions that many or most Americans would agree with — yet they may get a combined total of less than 4 per cent of the popular vote.

Whoever designed the present system really knew what they were doing. Not only do the media reinforce it; most people accept the duopoly so thoroughly by now that voting for a candidate you really esteem is known as “wasting” your vote. And running on a minor party’s ticket is “electoral mischief.”

How cynical we’ve become. The real “electoral mischief” is staging elections that give unfair advantages to those who are already powerful — elections in which every vote is wasted.

Joseph Sobran

Current Column

Return to the SOBRAN’S home page